CPU: Any advantage in getting Dual core? (1 Viewer)

[revs]

As the title says - dual core, or a faster single core?

i.e. is MP or the any of the common codecs multithreaded, do they take advantage of multiple cores?

I currently have a AMD 64 3000+/1.8Ghz socket 939. Its ok, but a bit slow with ffdshow and scaling.

Do I upgrade to sual cores (expensive) or go for the fastest single core socket 939 (4000+ ? or thereabouts)

 

[joystick]

I think you only need a dual-core if you are look into getting HDTV. You would definetely need a dual-core, then.
I would prefer a Intel-chipset and Motherboard (preferably 965) for dc.

Well, yes, as always buying new hw is expensive, but if you choose wisely it will be worth it.....

cheers
joystick

 

[knutinh]

Transcoding MPEG2 to h264 1080p seems to be able to use 4 core cpus very well.

-k

 

[Spragleknas]

I would prefer getting an AMD X2-CPU. It is easier to cool, due to several things 1) bigger CPU-contact surface (forgot source) 2) Lower wattage - Intel and AMD does not rate TDP equally (according to SPCR a year ago)

 

[joystick]

It is easier to cool, due to several things

Sorry, but I have a machine running an E6600 with passive(!) cooling for media purposes....

cheers

 

[gxtracker]

there are definite advantages to going dual core over single core - the biggest of which is recording or playback and any multi-tasking the system may perfom, for example: downloading and parsing an EPG while decoding a movie that you're watching.

Even a low end multi-core CPU will be more responsive than a fast single core one.

 

[Spragleknas]

It is easier to cool, due to several things

Sorry, but I have a machine running an E6600 with passive(!) cooling for media purposes....

cheers

That does not mean that my statement is wrong... only that the Intel dual-core runs cool as well.

 

[Marcusb]

one thing that is interesting is that because AMD now use an integrated Northbridge (or was that south? I can never remember) for the memory controller, even though the CPU uses more power, the system on the whole uses the same or less than an Intel system as the motherboard doesn't need the extra controller and the CPU is much better at controlling power to the controller than the motherboard is. Tom's hardware had a big review on power usage for HTPC's a while back, from memory.

 

[knutinh]

one thing that is interesting is that because AMD now use an integrated Northbridge (or was that south? I can never remember) for the memory controller, even though the CPU uses more power, the system on the whole uses the same or less than an Intel system as the motherboard doesn't need the extra controller and the CPU is much better at controlling power to the controller than the motherboard is. Tom's hardware had a big review on power usage for HTPC's a while back, from memory.

And the point Spragleknas was making about having a large contact surface generally goes counter to integrating more and more circuitry into the cpu.

It all depends on whether the local cooling of cpu/gpu/nb is the weakest link, or if transport of system heat to the surroundings is the limiting factor.

If your system fan is able to move enough air that the system temp is close to the room temp, then no further gain can be made there. In that case, a cooler cpu or more efficient cpu cooler is the best route to lower cpu temps or less noise.


In my view, the intel Core2 has proven itself as a solid performer as well as good performance pr watt. I see no reason to go for anything else at this stage for most users.

I myself use an intel p4 2.8GHz for HTPC and an AMD A64 3000+ for bedroom-PC.


BTW, the guides, tests and forums at www.silentpcreviews.com is a much better focused forum if you want noise/heat-related answers. MP is about HTPC-software

-k

 

[Spragleknas]

Corrected link: http://www.silentpcreview.com/

And:

How does AMD define TDP?

“Thermal Design Power (TDP) is measured under the conditions of TCASE Max, IDD Max, and VDD=VID_VDD, and include all power dissipated on-die from VDD, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT, and VDDA.”

This means that TDP, as defined by AMD, is measured at the maximum current the CPU can draw, at the default voltage, under the worst-case temperature conditions. This is the maximum power that the CPU can possibly dissipate. Intel, however, has a different definition.

How does Intel define TDP?

From the Intel Datasheet for Northwood CPUs:

“The numbers in this column reflect Intel’s recommended design point and are not indicative of the maximum power the processor can dissipate under worst case conditions.”

And from Intel’s datasheet for Prescott CPUs:

“Thermal Design Power (TDP) should be used for processor thermal solution design targets. The TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate.”

And the most telling quote of all, contained in both documents:

“Analysis indicates that real applications are unlikely to cause the processor to consume maximum power dissipation for sustained periods of time. Intel recommends that complete thermal solution designs target the Thermal Design Power (TDP) indicated in Table 26 instead of the maximum processor power consumption. The Thermal Monitor feature is intended to help protect the processor in the unlikely event that an application exceeds the TDP recommendation for a sustained period of time.”

What this means is that Intel’s TDP is actually lower than the maximum power dissipation of the processor (and as you’ll see later, it can be significantly lower). This is in stark contrast to AMD’s TDP numbers, which are higher than the respective processor’s maximum power dissipation.